In the Public Eye

I just entered into the arena where science and policy come together - applying science for public good. I'm still very much in the midst of learning the culture, what I can and cannot say (aka how and when to censor myself), and figuring out what I'll be doing. At the same time on the other side of the world, six scientists were just convicted of poorly communicating the uncertainty of science in the public sphere. Six geoscientists did not predict an earthquake or 'accurately communicate' the potential earthquake hazard. This does not inspire confidence as I start navigating this new realm.

We had 2 weeks of orientation - oriented to leave out the caveats when giving a message to the Hill. There's not time nor the desire by the audience to go through the uncertainties. At the same time, we were told to tell it how it is... within the confines of the audience and time limits. It's a difficult line to find - concise, clear and decisive, but scientifically complete. I knew I had to learn how to hit the right balance. Now I'm a bit scared of what might happen if I miss.

There are numerous articles, blogs, comments, etc discussing the trial and verdict. I don't know the intricacies of the trial nor the exact words said before the earthquake, so I do not try to presume the 'correct' verdict. However, only hours later, there are already profound effects rippling across the scientific community. It is not only me, a small player in a pond, that is questioning their role and willingness to put themselves out into the public... its really too bad, because I also see a lot of opportunities to help society and help the environment.